re: Shocking statistics from the WSJ, re: entitlement programs

quote:I consider myself slightly to the left of center on most things, but I will say that I am FOR defense spending. It creates jobs, produces opportunities for advancements in technology that benefit many industries and maintains our prominent stature in the world. What I'm not for is unnecessary combat.

Defense spending does create jobs and provides huge advances in technology, but at what cost? How do we enjoy the fruits of the money we spend on R&D when our "allies" take that technology and concentrate on commercial uses and markets for it because they are not burdened with securing those markets? Take a look at the amount of public investment Japan has made in their auto industry since WW2 compared to ours and then compare how much they spend on national security as a % of GDP and how much we spend. The facts are abundant. Our military spending allows our competitors to concentrate on commercial markets for the technology that we have developed to secure those markets for them.

As far as unnecessary combat that is another inevitable outcome of huge military budgets. You can't cook a mess of chocolate chip cookies without developing an appetite for chocolate chip cookies and you can't develop a taste for high tech weaponry without simultaneously increasing your appetite for using that weaponry.

quote:President Obama during his inauguration speech on Monday. "The commitments we make to each other—through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security—these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us," Mr. Obama said. "They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great." In other words, the president is tired of listening to critics of America's entitlement programs, and as far as he is concerned, the discussion is now over."

The first thing I notice in Obama's comments is that he conveniently leaves out Welfare as an entitlement. This is the way Obama/Dems shape the narrative with a compliment MSM. If the facts get in the way of their agenda, they just force/warp the perspective to support their vision. The facts stated in the linked article should have immediately been cited by the media following Obama's inaugural address. I don't expect every media outlet to have a right wing bias but the truth would be nice for a change. I applaud the WSJ for having the balls to tell the truth.

This statement from the article tells you all you need to know: "Today, entitlement programs account for nearly two-thirds of federal spending. In other words, welfare spending is nearly twice as much as defense, justice and everything else Washington does—combined. In effect, the federal government has become an entitlements machine."

In other words defense which was clearly cited as a government priority in the Constitution, has become less of a priority than welfare by a huge margin.

quote:bull shite. we're the world's #1 or 2 exporter of goods. we're the technological beacon of the world

are you calling trinkets and super basic assembly things of substance?

We are fourth, behind the European Union less Germany, UK and France, Germany alone, and China. If it weren't for military spending there would be no European Union, Germany would not be in a position to ship products all over the world and China would certainly not be anywhere near the top of this list. US and foreign investors would be beating a path to the United States to invest because there would be no real option.

Yes, "trinkets" such as automobiles and ships provide pretty good paying jobs.

quote:and we benefit by getting cheaper goods, which gives us more resources (time, energy, money) to invest in producing more advanced technologies and living at a higher standard of living

No, we do not benefit from buying cheaper goods. There are costs associated with buying Tshirts made in Sri Lanka that we would not incur of that shite were made in Valley Alabama. That cost includes unsustainable entitlement programs that will eventually make it impossible to enjoy that higher standard of living. That standard of living is currently being funded, in part, through these entitlement programs. When this is no longer possible that SOL will decline rapidly. Our military budgets allow those cheaper good to be brought to market, period. If it weren't for that spending we would be the leading exporter of goods and be the envy of the world for our success and Sri Lanka would be doing everything in its people's power to emulate us in every way. Your vision is very short sighted and one that has lead us to the brink of insolvency.

Obama knows the truth and the truth is that none of this is sustainable without reform. He knows that but if someone finally gets around to facing the real critical truth, Obama can blame it on someone else. "Wasn't my idea".

quote:quote:Generosity is a virtue, on that we can all agree with President Obama. But being generous with other people's money is not the same thing. Who wrote this article? This excerpt should be framed and hung in Washington.

quote:What is alarming for opponents of this type of system is the sheer number of adults whose lives depend on government assistance to some degree. One could extrapolate that that makes it almost impossible for a candidate running on a platform of ridding our country of entitlement programs to succeed in getting elected.

It almost feels like that's the plan. I don't normally (or ever, can't remember) use the words socialist or communist but I understand people's (hopefully hyperbolic) use of them.

quote:we do not benefit from buying cheaper goods. There are costs associated with buying Tshirts made in Sri Lanka that we would not incur of that shite were made in Valley Alabama

like what?

quote: That cost includes unsustainable entitlement programs

separate concept

entitlement programs pay more than min wage, and that would be the sort of jobs these factory workers would get (min wage would be way overpaying them, also). entitlements have nothing to do with shitty jobs leaving America

quote: That standard of living is currently being funded, in part, through these entitlement programs.

overall? yes

we prop up our NATIONAL SOL via entitlement programs, but the SOL of the middle/top would raise if we eliminated them

quote:Our military budgets allow those cheaper good to be brought to market, period.

which is awesome for everyone involved

shitty countries get an economy doing shite that isn't economically feasible to do in america. they get higher wages than they would get elsewhere and prices are lower in america, so we have more resources to devote to better industries. it's good for everyone

quote: If it weren't for that spending we would be the leading exporter of goods and be the envy of the world for our success and Sri Lanka would be doing everything in its people's power to emulate us in every way.

thank you, by the way, for pointing out i was wrong about being top 2. who is going to buy our overpriced goods if we have the highest SOL in the world and we couldn't afford the prices?

how do our exports grow when we can't make cost efficient goods (on the lower-end) for our own state, let alone poorer states?

quote:and Sri Lanka would be doing everything in its people's power to emulate us in every way.

they already are by adopting secondary industry and replacing primary industry. they can sell cheap labor. if we took those jobs they'd have nothing to offer the world market, so they'd have no ability to emulate America

quote:Defense spending does create jobs and provides huge advances in technology, but at what cost? How do we enjoy the fruits of the money we spend on R&D when our "allies" take that technology and concentrate on commercial uses and markets for it because they are not burdened with securing those markets? Take a look at the amount of public investment Japan has made in their auto industry since WW2 compared to ours and then compare how much they spend on national security as a % of GDP and how much we spend. The facts are abundant. Our military spending allows our competitors to concentrate on commercial markets for the technology that we have developed to secure those markets for them.

Surpluses (excess tax monies after all benefits have been paid, which hasn't been the case since 2010) are converted by law from cash into treasury IOU's that are put into the "Social Security Trust Fund," and that cash is basically borrowed for general purpose government spending, i.e. the rest of the government has borrowed the cash from the Treasury Department.

In other words, even if Social Security were to end tomorrow, taxpayers would still have to repay the balance of the Social Security Trust fund, which I believe is currently about $2.5 trillion in IOU's, either through direct taxation or more borrowing.

Rohan2Reed

quote:Here's a question I have about the entitlement programs and jobs: if government assistance were to end completely (extreme case, yes) but hypothetically let's say the draw down was 80% cut of benefits from welfare, food stamps and government housing assistance ... where would those people find work?

Illegals have poured across our border for years, and Democrats preach about how we MUST have healthy immigration, and at the same time, we have farmers in Alabama who complain about their crops rotting in the field if the illegals are run off.

I suppose the hue and cry will emanate from many on this board that Americans will never do these jobs, but when the choice becomes either work or starve to death, then I believe "their hearts and minds will follow."

quote:currently dispense entitlement benefits of more than $2.3 trillion annually.

quote: Today, entitlement programs account for nearly two-thirds of federal spending. In other words, welfare spending is nearly twice as much as defense, justice and everything else Washington does—combined

Wow. Just wow. Forget fiscal policies and economic policies. The problem is clear. Cut down on welfare and entitlements to the point where it should be ( more restricted, and less than a minimum wage worker at 40 hrs a week) and you solve the deficit right there.

quote:The first thing I notice in Obama's comments is that he conveniently leaves out Welfare as an entitlement.

"Today, entitlement programs account for nearly two-thirds of federal spending. In other words, welfare spending is nearly twice as much as defense, justice and everything else Washington does—combined

So how are we defining welfare? Are we defining it the way the article does when it says welfare spending is twice as much as defense, etc? You do realize that the article is including social security, medicare and medicaid, you know the things the president mentioned when you said he didn't mention welfare.

A lot of you have this idea that if I receive a benefit it isn't welfare, therefore those three big programs don't count. But when you want to bitch about the cost of welfare spending, somehow these are included in the costs. Food Stamps etc, are only a small part of the total entitlement spending.

quote:Wow. Just wow. Forget fiscal policies and economic policies. The problem is clear. Cut down on welfare and entitlements to the point where it should be ( more restricted, and less than a minimum wage worker at 40 hrs a week) and you solve the deficit right there.

So you're cool that your social security check and medicare benefits combined shouldn't be over 1256.67 a month? You do realize that the 2/3 of federal spending number includes these two things.